/m/angels

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

This is a nice little tidbit, like when the Phillies lost their 10,000 game, but pretty darn irrelevant.

Mind you, there's some Angels fans who have lived through the totality of the Angels' history, so in that sense they are unlike some of the older franchises (some of which go back to the 19th century), but to almost all Angels fans, there's no sting to losses in the 1960s (obviously, a few more will remember the Nolan Ryan 70s, a few more will remember Donny Moore, etc., etc.).

Since the Angels are in the second biggest media market in the country, it doesn't say much for the franchise that it's taken them this long just to break even. You can ascribe a lot of their early mediocrity to the way that the first expansion draft screwed the new teams, but given that they managed to go 86-76 in their second year of existence, that's more of an excuse than a reason.

Now, they aren’t the first expansion team to break .500. As Dbacks’ Vice President Josh Rawitch noted on Twitter last night, Arizona was 652-644 between 1998 and 2005, getting over the .500 hump and staying there for a time after their first couple of seasons. Such early success for an expansion team is unusual, however, and they have since sunk below sea level.

You can ascribe a lot of their early mediocrity to the way that the first expansion draft screwed the new teams

The Angels had one of the most successful shots out of the gate of any expansion franchise -- .484 their first six years. I think only KC, Colorado, and Arizona can compete with that. In part the comparative success was because the first expansion draft was particularly good to them, bringing as it did Jim Fregosi and Dean Chance (and Albie Pearson, and few other solid players).

The "mediocrity" tag that became associated with the franchise had a lot more to do with the 1968-76 squads, which were often listless sacks of scrubs playing ineptly behind a few dominant starters.

The Astros were above .500 for a short time, I think in 2006, but of course they have been worse than their expansion years lately and are way below .500 now.
I'm always surprised when looking at how well the Angels did in their early years. Did the later expansion teams have more favorable startup conditions than the sixties teams?

The Angels had one of the most successful shots out of the gate of any expansion franchise -- .484 their first six years. I think only KC, Colorado, and Arizona can compete with that. In part the comparative success was because the first expansion draft was particularly good to them, bringing as it did Jim Fregosi and Dean Chance (and Albie Pearson, and few other solid players).

The Angels also had the unique fortune of being in the (relatively) weakest Major League since WWII. Under any other set of circumstances they wouldn't have done nearly as well.

Did the later expansion teams have more favorable startup conditions than the sixties teams?

Yes, I believe the conditions were quite a bit better for the most recent expansion clubs like the Rockies, Marlins, Rays, and Diamondbacks. IIRC, the 60's expansion clubs had relatively slim pickings compared to the 90's teams.

the conditions were quite a bit better for the most recent expansion clubs like the Rockies, Marlins, Rays, and Diamondbacks. IIRC, the 60's expansion clubs had relatively slim pickings compared to the 90's teams.

#20 - Those Senators were roundly outdrafted by the Angels, plus they were on a shoestring budget and made many poor decisions. They picked up a veteran pitcher in the expansion draft in Dick Donovan, who had a good year for them, leading the league in ERA. So deal him for a couple of good prospects, right?. Nope, they traded him to Cleveland for a washed up Jim Piersall.

I guess the Angels just made extremely good decisions early in their history.

Up until the mid-'60s, their franchise-building was exceptional. But then they started screwing around with and squandering their young talent, doing dumb stuff like trading away a young Jose Cardenal, and yo-yoing potentially useful pieces like Ed Kirkpatrick. More on that here: http://www.halosheaven.com/2010/10/16/1755324/dizzy-about-mike-trout-recall-the-cautionary-tale-of-ed-kirkpatrick

... who gave them -1.2 WAR for 1.3 seasons, after which he was traded for a retiring Gil Hodges, and then re-signed as a free agent by ... the Los Angeles Angels! For whom he gave a decent 1.5 WAR (.279/.327/.349) as a part-timer for four-plus years, also providing crucial early-career moral guidance to, uh, Jay Johnstone.